Supreme Court of India has held that a partition can also be carried out through settlement or oral understanding, without the necessity of a written instrument. Justices Bela Trivedi and SV Bhatti emphasized that there is no legal prohibition against effecting a partition in a manner other than through a written document, as long as the legal requirements are met.

The case revolved around a woman plaintiff who sought a declaration that she was a coparcener under the amended Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Additionally, she sought partition and possession of one-third of the property. However, both the Trial Court and the Madras High Court dismissed her suit, stating that the property was not available for partition as of the date when Section 29A came into force.

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the property listed in the plaintiff's claim could be considered as having coparcenary status on March 25, 1989, and thus available for partition.

The court stated that the mere fact that the plaintiff had attained the legal status of a coparcener did not automatically warrant the acceptance of her partition request. The plaintiff needed to prove that the partial partition did not adversely affect the coparcenary rights. Despite the plaintiff's coparcener status, the court found her unable to demonstrate that the property remained eligible for partition as a coparcenary.

This ruling highlights that partitions can be accomplished through oral agreements or settlements, without mandating a written instrument. However, the court's decision underscores the importance of substantiating the continuation of coparcenary rights when seeking partition.

The case of H Vasanthi vs A. Santha (D) serves as a significant legal precedent in matters related to property division and inheritance under Hindu personal law.

Click here to read/download Judgment